for the people on the "devalue pole" issue... pole position only exists out of necessity remember. And although it might be considered the fairest option available as we can't start the cars line-astern, it's pretty counter-productive to any wish to create a good 'race'. Start by giving the best guys a head-start? ....

Hi Dolomite, you have a point, but equally, would you rather disadvantage someone for being better? Remember, they are in pole position because they fought hard for it, they didn't just stroll in and parked their car there. They do not appoint the grid positions, they fight it on the track. Whoever has done a better job, reaps the spoils.

for the people on the "devalue pole" issue... pole position only exists out of necessity remember. And although it might be considered the fairest option available as we can't start the cars line-astern, it's pretty counter-productive to any wish to create a good 'race'. Start by giving the best guys a head-start? ....

Hi Dolomite, you have a point, but equally, would you rather disadvantage someone for being better? Remember, they are in pole position because they fought hard for it, they didn't just stroll in and parked their car there. They do not appoint the grid positions, they fight it on the track. Whoever has done a better job, reaps the spoils.

They are still on the pole, Siao. They would still have the advantageous line. Personally, I have never understood why F1 has used a staggered start anyway. I thought two cars side-by-side would have made better sense.

for the people on the "devalue pole" issue... pole position only exists out of necessity remember. And although it might be considered the fairest option available as we can't start the cars line-astern, it's pretty counter-productive to any wish to create a good 'race'. Start by giving the best guys a head-start? ....

Hi Dolomite, you have a point, but equally, would you rather disadvantage someone for being better? Remember, they are in pole position because they fought hard for it, they didn't just stroll in and parked their car there. They do not appoint the grid positions, they fight it on the track. Whoever has done a better job, reaps the spoils.

They are still on the pole, Siao. They would still have the advantageous line. Personally, I have never understood why F1 has used a staggered start anyway. I thought two cars side-by-side would have made better sense.

Sorry Blake, I'm not following. They have the advantageous line (most times), yes. So, what?

Saio, I guess what I am saying is how much more advantage does the fastest car on the grid need than to be on the front row with what would be the best line into the first turn? With the current staggered starts, the pole winner not only gets the most advantageous line, but also a significant "head start" by virtue of being further up the track.

Personally, I am not convinced that a three car front row on most F1 tracks is ideal, but firmly believe that side by side rows of two would be good for the sport and more fair.

Saio, I guess what I am saying is how much more advantage does the fastest car on the grid need than to be on the front row with what would be the best line into the first turn? With the current staggered starts, the pole winner not only gets the most advantageous line, but also a significant "head start" by virtue of being further up the track.

Personally, I am not convinced that a three car front row on most F1 tracks is ideal, but firmly believe that side by side rows of two would be good for the sport and more fair.

Ok, I understand. Well the pole was not always the preferred line, sometimes it is on the dirty side and sometimes it is on the outside of a braking corner. Senna may have made a point about that in 1990!

I also like the side by side idea, it would make it more interesting, a dead heat to the first corner

Times have changes since the '60s when cars started abreast. Back then, drivers sat with their shoulders above the cockpit, between two, unprotected fuel tanks. Some had just barely begun using belts, and it wasn't until Dan Gurney that drivers started wearing full face helmets. In short, one could easily get killed at the start, so drivers knew the importance of keeping apart.

Today's bumper cars encourage all manner of scraps at the start, because the drivers are well protected and feel all but invincible. This selfish driver syndrome factor cannot be measured in a racing sim.

This is true, but I doubt there is a driver that would want to risk ending his race or get a penalty because he played bumper cars. The danger of getting hurt is lower than ever before, but they are there to finish the race, not to play demolition derby.

Two words... Singapore, 2017

Think about Monaco... too many examples to cite.

I'm a bit surprised by the references to Singapore. Those cars were stacked at the start.

And part of the reason why Verstappen kept his foot in, was that he had said before the start that Vettel had everything to lose, so would have to be more careful than he. Which simply meant Verstappen himself forgot that Vettel had to win, and blocking him off was simply something Vettel "had" to do.

Simply pointing to Singapore doesn't make a good case for stacking the cars in the first place, and it doesn't make a good one for drivers playing the long game either.

It would be interesting to know the reasons why F1 went to stacked grids with massive distances between the cars all those years ago. But as things stand, and provided race control and the stewards are prepared to throw the book at drivers who seem to have reading difficulties, I think reverting to line abreast grids might well solve the problem of races being over past turn 1 on lap 1.

_________________Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

for the people on the "devalue pole" issue... pole position only exists out of necessity remember. And although it might be considered the fairest option available as we can't start the cars line-astern, it's pretty counter-productive to any wish to create a good 'race'. Start by giving the best guys a head-start? ....

Hi Dolomite, you have a point, but equally, would you rather disadvantage someone for being better? Remember, they are in pole position because they fought hard for it, they didn't just stroll in and parked their car there. They do not appoint the grid positions, they fight it on the track. Whoever has done a better job, reaps the spoils.

Actually yes! Well, kind of.

Personally I'd be happy with a reversed grid based on the WDC Standings - have always felt that way. The Champ would be the driver who had consistently fought through the front - what better judge of a drivers skills a- and surely a better one than clearing off in the fastest car.

I would see that not as disadvantaging the driver, just negating some of their car advantage and allowing them an opportunity to prove they can *race* as oppose to turn some quick laps consistently in a good car.

As a wise man once said, there's a difference between driving a fast car and driving a car fast.

for the people on the "devalue pole" issue... pole position only exists out of necessity remember. And although it might be considered the fairest option available as we can't start the cars line-astern, it's pretty counter-productive to any wish to create a good 'race'. Start by giving the best guys a head-start? ....

Hi Dolomite, you have a point, but equally, would you rather disadvantage someone for being better? Remember, they are in pole position because they fought hard for it, they didn't just stroll in and parked their car there. They do not appoint the grid positions, they fight it on the track. Whoever has done a better job, reaps the spoils.

Actually yes! Well, kind of.

Personally I'd be happy with a reversed grid based on the WDC Standings - have always felt that way. The Champ would be the driver who had consistently fought through the front - what better judge of a drivers skills a- and surely a better one than clearing off in the fastest car.

I would see that not as disadvantaging the driver, just negating some of their car advantage and allowing them an opportunity to prove they can *race* as oppose to turn some quick laps consistently in a good car.

As a wise man once said, there's a difference between driving a fast car and driving a car fast.

Yes that work well at Monaco or not?

When we start talking in terms of reverse grids then way not just spec the cars if we are unhappy with car advantages, also with today's cars good luck on passing anyone.

for the people on the "devalue pole" issue... pole position only exists out of necessity remember. And although it might be considered the fairest option available as we can't start the cars line-astern, it's pretty counter-productive to any wish to create a good 'race'. Start by giving the best guys a head-start? ....

Hi Dolomite, you have a point, but equally, would you rather disadvantage someone for being better? Remember, they are in pole position because they fought hard for it, they didn't just stroll in and parked their car there. They do not appoint the grid positions, they fight it on the track. Whoever has done a better job, reaps the spoils.

Actually yes! Well, kind of.

Personally I'd be happy with a reversed grid based on the WDC Standings - have always felt that way. The Champ would be the driver who had consistently fought through the front - what better judge of a drivers skills a- and surely a better one than clearing off in the fastest car.

I would see that not as disadvantaging the driver, just negating some of their car advantage and allowing them an opportunity to prove they can *race* as oppose to turn some quick laps consistently in a good car.

As a wise man once said, there's a difference between driving a fast car and driving a car fast.

Yes that work well at Monaco or not?

When we start talking in terms of reverse grids then way not just spec the cars if we are unhappy with car advantages, also with today's cars good luck on passing anyone.

Drivers pass each other all the time?

I'd be up for a reverse grid but perhaps as a qualifying race rather than as the main event.

for the people on the "devalue pole" issue... pole position only exists out of necessity remember. And although it might be considered the fairest option available as we can't start the cars line-astern, it's pretty counter-productive to any wish to create a good 'race'. Start by giving the best guys a head-start? ....

Hi Dolomite, you have a point, but equally, would you rather disadvantage someone for being better? Remember, they are in pole position because they fought hard for it, they didn't just stroll in and parked their car there. They do not appoint the grid positions, they fight it on the track. Whoever has done a better job, reaps the spoils.

Actually yes! Well, kind of.

Personally I'd be happy with a reversed grid based on the WDC Standings - have always felt that way. The Champ would be the driver who had consistently fought through the front - what better judge of a drivers skills a- and surely a better one than clearing off in the fastest car.

I would see that not as disadvantaging the driver, just negating some of their car advantage and allowing them an opportunity to prove they can *race* as oppose to turn some quick laps consistently in a good car.

As a wise man once said, there's a difference between driving a fast car and driving a car fast.

Yes that work well at Monaco or not?

When we start talking in terms of reverse grids then way not just spec the cars if we are unhappy with car advantages, also with today's cars good luck on passing anyone.

Drivers pass each other all the time?

I'd be up for a reverse grid but perhaps as a qualifying race rather than as the main event.

What races do you watch or are we allowing for SC's and drivers being on different tyres?

for the people on the "devalue pole" issue... pole position only exists out of necessity remember. And although it might be considered the fairest option available as we can't start the cars line-astern, it's pretty counter-productive to any wish to create a good 'race'. Start by giving the best guys a head-start? ....

Hi Dolomite, you have a point, but equally, would you rather disadvantage someone for being better? Remember, they are in pole position because they fought hard for it, they didn't just stroll in and parked their car there. They do not appoint the grid positions, they fight it on the track. Whoever has done a better job, reaps the spoils.

Actually yes! Well, kind of.

Personally I'd be happy with a reversed grid based on the WDC Standings - have always felt that way. The Champ would be the driver who had consistently fought through the front - what better judge of a drivers skills a- and surely a better one than clearing off in the fastest car.

I would see that not as disadvantaging the driver, just negating some of their car advantage and allowing them an opportunity to prove they can *race* as oppose to turn some quick laps consistently in a good car.

As a wise man once said, there's a difference between driving a fast car and driving a car fast.

for the people on the "devalue pole" issue... pole position only exists out of necessity remember. And although it might be considered the fairest option available as we can't start the cars line-astern, it's pretty counter-productive to any wish to create a good 'race'. Start by giving the best guys a head-start? ....

Hi Dolomite, you have a point, but equally, would you rather disadvantage someone for being better? Remember, they are in pole position because they fought hard for it, they didn't just stroll in and parked their car there. They do not appoint the grid positions, they fight it on the track. Whoever has done a better job, reaps the spoils.

Actually yes! Well, kind of.

Personally I'd be happy with a reversed grid based on the WDC Standings - have always felt that way. The Champ would be the driver who had consistently fought through the front - what better judge of a drivers skills a- and surely a better one than clearing off in the fastest car.

I would see that not as disadvantaging the driver, just negating some of their car advantage and allowing them an opportunity to prove they can *race* as oppose to turn some quick laps consistently in a good car.

As a wise man once said, there's a difference between driving a fast car and driving a car fast.

So I'm just wondering how much of a spectacle you're expecting to see for 2 hours if you line up the cars quickest at the front on a track they can't pass on....

So you stick someone like Lance Stroll on pole and he wins the race and that represents the finest quality of what F1 represents and that's the driver making the difference?

All those millions spent on the cars so we can have lottery winners, like I said before if you want the drivers to make the difference then have spec cars, it's a lot cheaper and it doesn't rely on gimmicks.

Another thing qualifying is traditionally a very important part of F1, it has it's own records and it's a very important part of the F1 weekend, any one wanting rid of qualifying is in my opinion not a true fan, true fans from what I see do not want reverse grids.

A 4 x world champion in a car with 225 bhp more than the car in front still can't pass...

I've been watching F1 for 25 years and barely missed a race, I follow the sport not a team/driver. Monaco may be special for those who are fortunate enough to go but I tune in Sundays to watch a race not a procession. watching the cars at speed through the streets is impressive for sure, but when you're only hope of an interesting or exciting race is the safety car you have to think about that.

A 4 x world champion in a car with 225 bhp still can't pass the car in front.

I've been watching F1 for 25 years and barely missed a race, I follow the sport not a team/driver. Monaco may be special for those who are fortunate enough to go but I tune in Sundays to watch a race not a procession. watching the cars at speed through the streets is impressive for sure, but when you're only hope of an interesting or exciting race is the safety car you have to think about that.

Sadly the only way to "fix" the Monaco GP would be to make sure it's a wet race but I don't think anyone wants to see Bernie's sprinklers. Like it is now they could just as well hand out the points after quali.

That said, I still don't want to see it dropped unless it's replaced by another (good) circuit. Maybe they could alternate with Turkey or Fuji or something...

Let's not forget, when thinking about the Monaco Grand Prix, that the width of the cars was increased last year. Not that it was easy to pass before F1 opted for 5 second quicker lap times, but widening the cars isn't going to help.

I've been watching F1 regularly since the early '80s (and Monaco far longer), and there was passing there as recently as a few years ago, including before the cars were narrowed.

I think the drivers' comments about going much slower to make the tyres last, speak volumes. The current tyre policy is wrong and needs to be ditched. A tyre war is perhaps unfair to part of the field, but at least it doesn't lead to what we saw yesterday - bar the mistake that led to Indy 2005.

_________________Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

A 4 x world champion in a car with 225 bhp still can't pass the car in front.

I've been watching F1 for 25 years and barely missed a race, I follow the sport not a team/driver. Monaco may be special for those who are fortunate enough to go but I tune in Sundays to watch a race not a procession. watching the cars at speed through the streets is impressive for sure, but when you're only hope of an interesting or exciting race is the safety car you have to think about that.

Sadly the only way to "fix" the Monaco GP would be to make sure it's a wet race but I don't think anyone wants to see Bernie's sprinklers. Like it is now they could just as well hand out the points after quali.

That said, I still don't want to see it dropped unless it's replaced by another (good) circuit. Maybe they could alternate with Turkey or Fuji or something...

Let's not forget, when thinking about the Monaco Grand Prix, that the width of the cars was increased last year. Not that it was easy to pass before F1 opted for 5 second quicker lap times, but widening the cars isn't going to help.

I've been watching F1 regularly since the early '80s (and Monaco far longer), and there was passing there as recently as a few years ago, including before the cars were narrowed.

I think the drivers' comments about going much slower to make the tyres last, speak volumes. The current tyre policy is wrong and needs to be ditched. A tyre war is perhaps unfair to part of the field, but at least it doesn't lead to what we saw yesterday - bar the mistake that led to Indy 2005.

The tyres are used because of countless fans saying they want tyres that don't last so we have multiple pit stops, anyway having more durable tyres would make little difference because you still can't pass.

A 4 x world champion in a car with 225 bhp still can't pass the car in front.

I've been watching F1 for 25 years and barely missed a race, I follow the sport not a team/driver. Monaco may be special for those who are fortunate enough to go but I tune in Sundays to watch a race not a procession. watching the cars at speed through the streets is impressive for sure, but when you're only hope of an interesting or exciting race is the safety car you have to think about that.

Sadly the only way to "fix" the Monaco GP would be to make sure it's a wet race but I don't think anyone wants to see Bernie's sprinklers. Like it is now they could just as well hand out the points after quali.

That said, I still don't want to see it dropped unless it's replaced by another (good) circuit. Maybe they could alternate with Turkey or Fuji or something...

Monaco will never be dropped, it's seen as the jewel in the crown.

Is it seen as the jewel in the crown by the americans who call the shots and want entertainment more than anything?

Let's not forget, when thinking about the Monaco Grand Prix, that the width of the cars was increased last year. Not that it was easy to pass before F1 opted for 5 second quicker lap times, but widening the cars isn't going to help.

I've been watching F1 regularly since the early '80s (and Monaco far longer), and there was passing there as recently as a few years ago, including before the cars were narrowed.

I think the drivers' comments about going much slower to make the tyres last, speak volumes. The current tyre policy is wrong and needs to be ditched. A tyre war is perhaps unfair to part of the field, but at least it doesn't lead to what we saw yesterday - bar the mistake that led to Indy 2005.

The tyres are used because of countless fans saying they want tyres that don't last so we have multiple pit stops, anyway having more durable tyres would make little difference because you still can't pass.

In view of the fan surveys, they should have a fairly good idea of how many fans want circus tyres, but yes, there are far too many fans who believe in pitstops unfortunately.In the present circumstances I would say you are right, but my post outlined two factors that weren't needed. Nor, as far as I'm aware, were requested by the fans.

_________________Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

A 4 x world champion in a car with 225 bhp still can't pass the car in front.

I've been watching F1 for 25 years and barely missed a race, I follow the sport not a team/driver. Monaco may be special for those who are fortunate enough to go but I tune in Sundays to watch a race not a procession. watching the cars at speed through the streets is impressive for sure, but when you're only hope of an interesting or exciting race is the safety car you have to think about that.

Sadly the only way to "fix" the Monaco GP would be to make sure it's a wet race but I don't think anyone wants to see Bernie's sprinklers. Like it is now they could just as well hand out the points after quali.

That said, I still don't want to see it dropped unless it's replaced by another (good) circuit. Maybe they could alternate with Turkey or Fuji or something...

Monaco will never be dropped, it's seen as the jewel in the crown.

Is it seen as the jewel in the crown by the americans who call the shots and want entertainment more than anything?